If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

What worries me as a non-American is the combination of Republican president, Republican senate and Republican congress. Where are the necessary checks and balances?

In theory, the same place they always were: the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches.
The problem is that unlike a Westminster System where the Executive sits inside the legislature, apart from the President none of the Executive are elected positions. Also, you've managed to politicise the Judicial branch; which is dumb.

Because America has successfully combined the worst possible aspects of First-Past-The-Post, Winner-Takes-All, The Electoral College, and politicised all three branches of government, the very notion that there even are "checks and balances" in the American system of government is a lie. Stop living in fantasy land.

Originally Posted by Starter

When Obama won you didn't see the other side in the streets pissing and moaning that their candidate didn't win. What makes you think you are so special? Suck it up like the rest of us and wait your turn.

Um, you did. During Congress 111, we heard no end of moaning and whinging; especially in the press. Obama and the administration was painted as Satan incarnate. Stop living in fantasy land.

The Old Republic was a stupidly run organisation which deserved to be taken over. All Hail Palpatine!

}Republicans will have the Supreme Court too. The only check, other than the Constitution, will be the filibuster where the Democrats can block some (but not all) proposals in the Senate.{

However, Republicans, being in power, can change the rules to get rid of the filibuster-a tactic known as the "nuclear option". They may not want to do that though because they might want to filibuster at some future date when they are not in power.

This is my opinion and to the best of my knowledge, that is, if I'm not joking

While i appreciate that, from the sunny southern hemisphere, you have a better grasp of things than those of us who live here, you have several things wrong.

Originally Posted by Rollo

In theory, the same place they always were: the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches.
The problem is that unlike a Westminster System where the Executive sits inside the legislature, apart from the President none of the Executive are elected positions.

The Vice President was also elected.

Also, you've managed to politicise the Judicial branch; which is dumb.

The judicial branch has always been politicized. In that the sitting President gets to appoint them, with Congress having consent powers. So ALL Supreme Court judges came to the bench with views similar to said President. The kicker here is that the Supreme Court is a life time appointment and you would be surprised how many times the appointment, in the long run, didn't turn out quite the way expected.

Because America has successfully combined the worst possible aspects of First-Past-The-Post, Winner-Takes-All, The Electoral College, and politicised all three branches of government, the very notion that there even are "checks and balances" in the American system of government is a lie. Stop living in fantasy land.

The electoral college is quite often misunderstood. It's a great example of preventing the tyranny of the many over the few. It prevents the more populous states from running over the smaller states to some degree. Especially since the wants and needs of the heavily populated states, ie big cities, are not necessarily in sync with the same of the smaller states which may be bigger in area but not population.

Um, you did. During Congress 111, we heard no end of moaning and whinging; especially in the press. Obama and the administration was painted as Satan incarnate. Stop living in fantasy land.

From the politicians and a small group of the press, yes. You did not see marching in the streets and acts of vandalism, which is what I was talking about.

If you want to be pedantic about it, the voters elect the electoral college and the President and Vice-President are appointed by indirect election. It still doesn't change the fact that Veep comes as a job lot and ever since the Twelfth Amendment was passed, they've been tied together.

Unless of course where you are, you do vote sperately for the Veep.

Originally Posted by Starter

The judicial branch has always been politicized.

And it's always been rubbish. Marbury v. Madison is a classic example with Jefferson, Adams and Madison havign a right barney as far back as 1803. It was never any good to start with.

Originally Posted by Starter

The electoral college is quite often misunderstood. It's a great example of preventing the tyranny of the many over the few. It prevents the more populous states from running over the smaller states to some degree. Especially since the wants and needs of the heavily populated states, ie big cities, are not necessarily in sync with the same of the smaller states which may be bigger in area but not population.

Technically you could win the Electoral College by carrying only 11 states.

Also, there have now been 5 elections where the president has been voted in with an unpopular vote. This is a sport where the winner won roughly 7% of the time with less points.

But I'll still say that Trump should have won the election. Those were the rules and people should have known that. It doesn't make the result wrong, it makes the rules wrong.

The Old Republic was a stupidly run organisation which deserved to be taken over. All Hail Palpatine!

But I'll still say that Trump should have won the election. Those were the rules and people should have known that. It doesn't make the result wrong, it makes the rules wrong.

Clinton may or may not win the popular vote after all the votes are counted and verified but, assuming she does, it's immaterial. Trump was running to win the election not the popular vote. If it was a popular vote election, he would have run an altered campaign and, with the superior staff he'd assembled, he would have won that election as well.

Last edited by Stan Reid; 14th November 2016 at 20:10.

This is my opinion and to the best of my knowledge, that is, if I'm not joking

Trump was running to win the election not the popular vote. If it was a popular vote election, he would have run an altered campaign and, with the superior staff he'd assembled, he would have won that election as well.

Let's back up the dumpster before everyone started throwing in boxes of deplorables before setting the whole lot on fire.

Both the Republicrats and the Democans run an idiotic primary system, which is excessively long and needlessly expensive. In that it took to run the primaries, Australia, Japan, Korea, Austria, Spain, Ireland and Iceland all held their elections inside that time.
Are you really telling me that Trump and Hillary were the best candidates that the parties could have put forward?

If all parties ran say seven candidates and one nationwide election was held on one day, with preferential voting, you could have the whole campaign over in six weeks.

The Old Republic was a stupidly run organisation which deserved to be taken over. All Hail Palpatine!

Yet your post sort of epitomizes the view of his opposition, that being assumptions of why a person would vote for him, and that those reasons are assumed wrong.

Originally Posted by Breeze

I came back here because I was bored and wanted to read some entertaining comments on the Trump election. 10 years ago this thread would have been a 15 page flame war of epic proportions.

Where have all the interesting people gone (excepting, of course, those still here)?

I think 15 pages is a modest assumption. We would easily be up in the 30's or 40's of pages by now. Just the fact that Roamy showed up to comment would have provoked several pages of those that counter his view.

I saw this election cycle up close. I also saw this one coming....obviously I have few things in common with the Republican agenda and an absolute distaste of the nonsense spouted by the Giuliani/Hannity types. But the fact remains that after winning the election pretty fairly you have to give him time to work and then protest it.

Some of my friends are nervous due to the racist/anti semitic incidences in schools (even in CA!) but I hope aren't going to be the norm for 4 years.

Deriding Trump (and rightly so) when he said he may not accept the election if he lost, and then going and doing the same thing yourself when he wins, is ironic or even hypocritical. If indeed more people voted for Hillary, and even among the Trump voters a sense of civility exists (which it surely does among most of them) then the fear of him becoming a dictator is bit paranoid. Of course with house, senate being on his side, he indeed is in prime position to pass laws which will upset a majority of the people.

I still feel that he will not be able to implement all the things he said he would (neither would he actually want to), even if he is not a politician, he knows what to say to get votes!

I saw this election cycle up close. I also saw this one coming....obviously I have few things in common with the Republican agenda and an absolute distaste of the nonsense spouted by the Giuliani/Hannity types. But the fact remains that after winning the election pretty fairly you have to give him time to work and then protest it.

He is the President elect, like it or not, so I agree that giving him time to prove himself is only fair. Some of the Republican agenda I agree with. For instance that smaller government is better government.

Some of my friends are nervous due to the racist/anti semitic incidences in schools (even in CA!) but I hope aren't going to be the norm for 4 years.

Actually I think this is a good thing. Those people feel they can come out and say those things now. In reality what they have done is expose themselves for the fools that they are for all to see instead of hiding in the shadows.

Deriding Trump (and rightly so) when he said he may not accept the election if he lost, and then going and doing the same thing yourself when he wins, is ironic or even hypocritical. If indeed more people voted for Hillary, and even among the Trump voters a sense of civility exists (which it surely does among most of them) then the fear of him becoming a dictator is bit paranoid. Of course with house, senate being on his side, he indeed is in prime position to pass laws which will upset a majority of the people.

Don't count on the House & Senate walking in lock step with him. On some things yes, on others not so much.

I still feel that he will not be able to implement all the things he said he would (neither would he actually want to), even if he is not a politician, he knows what to say to get votes!

I expect it to be an interesting four years. It also will be interesting to see if he does well enough to re run.

When people take their advice from a bunch of celebrities than thinking through policy, it shouldn't be surprising when a reality TV star wins office.
The amount of hypocrisy displayed by the very existence of this video is palpable.

The social-left's failure in this election was to engage the population who didn't care about identity politics. The Trump campaign actually bothered to speak to people in the rust belt who had more pressing problems and ironically, his rhetoric about tariffs and jobs, is further to the economic-left than the Democrats.

The Democrats actually had a semi-revolt on economic grounds within their ranks in the form of Sanders and instead of bothering to address the issue, the DNC pulled a shifty.

What we have now in Trump, is a great section of the American public who want to throw a giant orange Molotov Cocktail into the establishment and Hillary is so far up the establishment, she disappeared up her own convention.

The Old Republic was a stupidly run organisation which deserved to be taken over. All Hail Palpatine!